Dr. Bill Arnold is a friend and dialogue partner. I got to know him first by our common work on the University Senate. We both care very much about the church, the work of ministry, and theological education. We are committed to the UMC and would see denominational division as a very sad and regrettable course of action. Lately we’ve had numerous conversations about the state of the church, the talk of division and its precipitating factors, and what might be necessary for the unity of the UMC going forward. After considerable conversation and counsel with other colleagues, we have developed a list of suggestions that we think would help to preserve the unity of the UMC if implemented.
These are not proposals that will resolve our differences around the matter of same-sex practices (intimacy, marriage, ordination), nor will they change our basic polity and allow a local or jurisdictional option around matters of sexual ethics. Dr. Arnold and I have read some such proposals, and, while we appreciate their ingenuity and creative thinking, neither of us sees them as plausible. (We have offered some critique of these proposals here and here). The main reason is that most would require some, and probably several, constitutional amendments, which are very hard to achieve. Further, they tend to require too great a change to the system of governance around which the UMC is built. We have a system of conferences—General, annual, jurisdictional, and charge, that have been developed to function as a more or less coherent system. Changing one part in a significant way would affect the other parts as well.
If any proposals for GC are to go through, they should probably be quite modest. In that spirit, then, Dr. Arnold and I wish to offer the following modest proposals, which are intended only to restore our polity to proper functioning, rather than restructure the denomination to accommodate irreconcilable perspectives.
(1) Suspension of the Trust Clause (BOD ¶2501) for one quadrennium specifically and only for the purpose of allowing local churches who cannot in good conscience live within the parameters of our Social Principle on human sexuality to leave the denomination with full ownership of their properties.
(2) Addition of new paragraph to BOD ¶248 allowing local churches to use the Church Conference as a venue for voting to leave the denomination. New paragraph at the end of existing ¶248: “The church conference may be convened for purposes of withdrawing the local church from The United Methodist Church for reasons of conscience related specifically and exclusively to the Social Principle on human sexuality (¶161F) and the Qualifications for Ordination (¶304.3). Ordained clergy of said church conference may withdraw to unite with another denomination under the provisions of ¶361.1. The local church of said church conference shall be released from the requirement of the trust clause of ¶2501. The local church shall retain full rights to its properties. Debts upon such properties and any other debts payable by that local church are assumed by the local church.”
(3) Empowerment of the General Board of Pension & Health Benefits to allow clergy who cannot in good conscience abide by our Social Principle on human sexuality to leave with full benefits.
(4) Amendment of the language around “just resolutions” in the Discipline. The definition of “just resolution” in 363.1(c ) is clear that “the person filing the complaint” must be included among the parties finding satisfactory resolution. Surprisingly, some have found ways to exclude complainant(s) as the “appropriate persons” entering into a such written agreement, as defined in “Just Resolution in Judicial Proceedings” (2701.5). We call upon GC2016 to refine the terminology of both the definition of “just resolution” (paragraph 363) and its implementation in the judicial proceedings to prevent complainant(s) from being excluded in the future (paragraph 2701.5).
(5) Election by the General Conference of a set-aside bishop to enforce and implement policy within the Council of Bishops.
(6) Empowerment and requirement of the set-aside bishop and Council of Bishops to hold their members accountable to the Book of Discipline.
(7) Creation of a “bishop emeritus/a” status for retired and inactive bishops; in order to maintain emeritus/a status, retired bishops shall uphold their vows at consecration and are to be held accountable to the episcopal vows and subject to correction and discipline of the Council of Bishops and set-aside bishop. Additionally, bishops emeritus/a would be removed from membership in the Council of Bishops, leaving bishops emeritus/a without voice or vote in the Council of Bishops.
We submit these seven proposals for your consideration, critique, and discussion, and we hope that they make a helpful contribution to our ongoing discussion in the UMC. We realize that no plan for moving forward will be perfect, and that there are problems that attend what we’ve written here, just as there are with any plan. We think, however, that these proposals are plausible and realistic, and that their implementation would help to restore order to our denominational life together.
What do you think?
David F. Watson 
From the pews, where the checks come from:
Strike EVERY reference to “Social Principle” and replace with “Book of Discipline.”
Then cue up the music for “Don’t Let the Screen Door Hit You on the Way Out.”
This plan seems to assume that our biggest “problem” is that dissenters are insufficiently afraid of punishment. I doubt that I know many (if any) truly “liberal” UMC laity, but I just don’t see or hear a clamor for more, more certain and more harsh punishment for dissenters.
Looks like this is a non-starter with paragraph 1. The progressives have no intention of leaving The UMC and if you ask them they will tell you that they are keeping the social principles. It is the chargeable offenses under P 2702 they are not following.
Paragraph 3 is like my kid saying he wants to leave and get his own place but I am supposed to keep paying his expenses. Tell those who leave to get their own health plan.
I have no confidence that our bishops with a set aside bishop or not can hold each other accountable for anything.
While I think a proposal to curtail ecclesial disobedience is necessary, I think there is a better chance that the General Conference adopts TULIP as doctrinal than that the Judicial Council will suspend the Trust Clause for any reason.
That could be….
David,
I wonder how our dialogue might change if we stopped labeling those we disagree with as “disobedient” (as some on the right do with those on the left) or “bigoted” (as some on the left do with those on the right)?
I often fear that we care more about proving ourselves right and/or stopping those with whom we disagree from acting on their beliefs than we do about finding ways to be in mutual ministry for the good of the Gospel.
If someone else is, in our eyes, “disobedient,” how does that stop us from being in ministry?
If someone else is, in our eyes, “bigoted” about one issue or another, how does that stop us from being in ministry?
Is the Spirit not capable of overcoming our human divisions and disputes?
This proposal, like the others I have seen from various quarters within the UMC, does little to help us find room to be in ministry together along with our differences. (Or, to put it more politically, I have yet to see one that those on the more conservative end of the spectrum and those on the more liberal end of the spectrum could both vote for).
I don’t know what the answer is, but I’m pretty sure I haven’t seen it yet.
I am preaching through Acts this summer in the church I serve and have just come (again) upon Acts 10 & 11 (again). I think we in the UMC have not yet had our big moment with God that redefines our future (as Peter did with Cornelius).
Perhaps I will simply begin praying for that to happen … and soon!
Sorry for the duplicate (again). Need a better proofreader than my eyes!
Don, thank you for your comments. I take your points, and I agree that our labels are often unhelpful. But to be clear, the plan isn’t aimed at people who disagree with the discipline. I have no problem with honest, principled disagreement. The plan really is geared toward dealing with clergy who intentionally and publicly violate the Discipline (hence the use of the term “disobedient”). If someone disagrees with me, that doesn’t stop me from being in ministry at all. But if multiple people, including some bishops, violate our shared covenant in public and intentional ways, that’s a problem. It represents a breakdown in the internal order of the denomination in which our ministries are located. As for that big moment you’re praying for, I’ll join you in that prayer.
The “covenant” to which some folks are being “disobedient” is a rule that was adopted by a bare majority in 2004, the height of U.S. anxiety about Same gender marriage. It’s a rule that it’s highly likely that FAR less than a majority of U.S. UMs support in 2014. “You have to obey the rules because they are rules” is a principle that may be appropriate for elementary school students, but is not valid for grown ups with consciences. I seriously don’t get the circular argument. Why not acknowledge that the rule is one that is not in any way “central” to what we are about and give up on finding ever more harsh ways to punish?
I’m just seeing this post and haven’t had time to scroll back through all the comments. So my apologies if I repeat what others have said.
.
The first thing I’d mention is my gratitude to you, David, and to Bill Arnold for your willingness to think seriously about what *might* be possible at General Conference and to offer a proposal for a way forward. I do not think any proposal involving constitutional amendments is realistic, and I’ve been surprised at the number of proposals that have made suggestions that involve them. I also don’t think the GC is a realistic venue for resolving serious theological disagreements about moral theology and ecclesial practice. In that sense, there will likely be no real ‘holy conferencing’ by almost 1000 people who don’t know each other and thus no way to come to resolution short of simply taking a vote of the delegates present.
.
Here are areas I think y’all should think about:
1) “The local church shall retain full rights to its properties.” That’s a problematic phrase, b/c it suggests that a local church has full right to something that can truthfully be described as *its* properties. Actually the local church has no properties, so your language will need to be modified to reflect the transference of property from the annual conference to the local church which has been holding such properties in trust for that annual conference. I would suggest asking a lawyer to work with you on the language (a serious suggestion, to make sure it conforms with the kind of contractual terminology that will be expected in order to pass muster at the GC).
.
2) Empowering the GBOPHB to allow clergy to leave needs to be specified that those who leave are also leaving the UM connection, i.e., will not be appointed to ministry positions within the UMC. Otherwise you end up with possible confusing situations where clergy could opt out of the pension/retirement program while remaining within the UMC (unlikely, but a thorny issue if it would happen).
.
3) The ‘just resolution’ material around judicial complaints is a mess. I found this out at my own annual conference this year when I read the section in close detail. It is going to take a lot of rewriting, which I think you two recognize by the way you’ve brought it up in your proposal.
.
4) The set-aside bishop is the element I’m most wary about. One danger is that a watch-dog position is set up that is inherently unpopular from Day 1. Another is that it might be expensive-yet-ineffective if the person there is seen as broadly ineffective in one way or another. Related to both of these issues is that such a position would be extremely political by its very nature. I suspect that you are proposing the position as a way to enforce accountability on bishops who would otherwise refuse to exit a UMC that does not change its position on the Disciplinary issues at stake and yet would also refuse to enforce the Discipline in that bishop’s area (which, by extension, would also enforce accountability for pastors who would do the same). In that sense, something serving the function of your set-aside bishop proposal is essential if this is to serve as the way to overcome the impasse we presently face. But it is going to be a very, very hard sell at the GC. It is the kind of thing that is tailor-made to be demonized by those who would want to undermine the very thing it would be supposed to accomplish. So what am I saying—agreement in principle but skepticism in fact? You decide.
.
The thing I’d most want to say is how much I appreciate the two of you willing to seek out a realistic way forward that respects our polity while allowing people of differing theological views to pursue their understanding of the gospel our Lord has given us with integrity.
Excellent points, Andrew. I agree with all of them, although I’m perhaps more hopeful that the set-aside bishop idea could take root, and be defined in such a way as to be helpful.
You’re exactly right about the way we worded the property question. Actually, all properties are held in trust for the whole denomination, “The United Methodist Church,” and not the annual conferences. But in any case, a disciplinary expert lawyer-type would need to help craft legislation, assuming any of this goes anywhere.
Thank you for your kind words, and good comments. / B.